Last week, I shared the revenue distribution model for the first year of the College Football Playoff. Now that pairings have been announced, we know how it works out for each conference (and yes, the Orange Bowl pays more than the CFP due to the nature of its contract – and next year when the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowls aren’t hosting semifinals, they’ll have larger payouts, as detailed at the end).

Keep in mind that all of this money goes to the conference, not to the team playing in the game. Most conferences split it equally between all 12-14 teams with an equal share also going to the conference office (although some give a bonus to the team participating in the game).

Power Five:

ACC

$50 million base to the conference

$6 million to the conference for FSU (Rose Bowl – CFP semifinal)

$27.5 million to the conference for Georgia Tech (Orange Bowl)

Total: $83.5 million to the conference

Conference distribution model: all bowl revenue is divided equally after expense allotments for the participating teams and is included in annual distribution along with other conference revenue. The only exception is Notre Dame (as it relates to football revenue), which is handled separately under a conference agreement that has not been made public.

Big XII

$50 million base to the conference

$4 million to the conference for TCU (Peach Bowl)

$4 million to the conference for Baylor (Cotton Bowl)

Total: $58 million to the conference

Conference distribution model: Bowl revenues are divided evenly between the 10 member institutions after subsidies are provided to participating institutions.

Big Ten

$50 million base to the conference

$6 million to the conference for Ohio State (Sugar Bowl – CFP semifinal)

$4 million to the conference for Michigan State (Cotton Bowl)

Total: $60 million to the conference

Conference distribution model: all bowl revenue is distributed equally between member institutions (taking into account financial integration plans for newer members) after a pre-determined amount for travel and related expenses is provided to participating institutions.

Pac-12

$50 million base to the conference

$6 million to the conference for Oregon (Rose Bowl – CFP semifinal)

$4 million to the conference for Arizona (Fiesta Bowl)

Total: $60 million to the conference

Conference distribution model: divided equally between all members.

SEC

$50 million base to the conference

$6 million to the conference for Alabama (Sugar Bowl – CFP semifinal)

$4 million to the conference for Ole Miss (Peach Bowl)

$27.5 million to the conference for Mississippi State (Orange Bowl)

Total: $87.5 million to the conference

Conference distribution model: For bowl games with receipts of $4,000,000 - $5,999,999, the participating team retains $1.475 million (Ole Miss), plus a travel allowance determined by SEC. For bowl games with receipts of $6 million or more, the participating team receives $2 million (Alabama and Mississippi State), plus a travel allowance determined by the SEC. If an SEC team makes it to the championship game, it receives another $2.1 million, plus travel allowance. The remainder of the revenue from these bowls is divided 15 ways – one share for each of the 14 SEC teams and one share for the conference office. There’s also a distribution method for bowls with lower payouts, but I’m not covering that here.

Group of Five:

American

$12 million base to the conference (1/5th of $60 million, per Group of Five formula)*

C-USA

$12 million base to the conference (1/5th of $60 million, per Group of Five formula)*

MAC

$12 million base to the conference (1/5th of $60 million, per Group of Five formula)*

Mountain West

$12 million base to the conference (1/5th of $60 million, per Group of Five formula)*

$4 million to the conference for Boise State (Fiesta Bowl)

Sun Belt

$12 million base to the conference (1/5th of $60 million, per Group of Five formula)*

Conference distribution model: equal division after travel subsidies.

* Based on reports from several sources, and also detailed in this article. The Group of Five have another $15 million to split, which sources tell me they will split according to computer rankings. The conference whose teams rank the highest in the aggregate will receive $5 million, the conference in second place $4 million, the conference in third place $3 million, the conference in fourth place $2 million and the conference in last place $1 million. It is unclear which computer rankings, or combination of computer rankings, will be used to make this determination. However, varying reports about the Group of Five formula are circulating. I’ll update this with anything new I learn.

Keep in mind that two of the contract bowls – the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl – are semifinal sites, meaning their contracts with the Big Ten/Pac-12 and SEC/Big XII, respectively, are not in play this year. In the years those games are played, each of those conferences will receive $40 million for playing in those games.

For full details on the payouts, including travel expenses and distributions to independents, and a comparison to the last year of the BCS, see this post.

The “College Athletics Construction Roundup” is a monthly series on the construction of intercollegiate athletics facilities. Each month we’ll provide a list of announced, in progress and recently completed athletic construction projects from around the country. You can view previous editions of the “College Athletics Construction Roundup” here.

Master Plan

Texas Tech is moving forward on its $185 million initiative that covers 25 projects in 17 sports. Football will replace seating and renovate the north end zone building. Funding is in place for renovations to United Supermarkets Arena at the end of basketball season.

When UNC Charlotte was exploring the addition of football, it reached out to athletic directors and provosts at other institutions for advice and asked each a set of questions regarding their own experience. This was done prior to UNC Charlotte’s 2008 vote to add football, so the landscape of major college football looked a little different.

Nonetheless, it’s still interesting to see UAB’s responses in light of yesterday’s news that the football program is being cut. In particular, the acknowledgement that the football program wasn’t built on the most solid ground at its inception.

Here’s how UAB’s athletic director Brian Mackin responded to each of the questions asked in the UNC Charlotte study:

1. What is your perspective on the implementation of the Football program (or lack of implementation)?

“At UAB, the President wanted football to help meet the university’s mission, therefore he supported (and current president does also) football with supplemental funding from the university. In the state of Alabama, the division of football you play is very important. (I-A) Conference Affiliation is very important. Identify who you want to be associated with. For UAB, it was important to be in a league with Southern Mississippi and Memphis, so Conference USA is a great fit.”

2. What were the consequences both intended and unintended with the implementation of football (or lack of implementation)?

“Unintended Consequences – On the front-end there was a miscommunication with the Trustees in regard to the goals of adding football. There is a need to have ownership from the “top down”—– total buy in. UAB has that now, but not sure we (UAB) did originally.

Intended Consequences – Start football, D I level and have a conference affiliation. Now we are “a complete” athletic program with football, that serves all sports. Conference USA is the perfect fit for us.”

3. Is there any advice that you would give as UNC Charlotte studies football?

“What Joe Gottfried did at South Alabama was smart……had a plan to sell a minimum # of season tickets prior to committing to start football. UAB just jumped in with no plan. You need a plan due to economic impact unless your President/Chancellor will subsidize the program at $4-4.5 million per year. I know you are aware of Title IX consequences.

Talk with marketing folks. We deal with ISP now-suggest you go external. We increased revenue from $200,000 to $1.4 million after we used external firm.”

And here’s how UAB’s provost responded to UNC – Charlotte, according to the report:

“The Provost commented that it seems to take a very long time to build a fan base. Attendance at games fluctuates with the wins and loses. He thinks that the size of the market is really important. Birmingham doesn’t have a professional team. There is a lot of allegiance to Alabama and Auburn football and UAB can’t really compete with them for interest. UAB has about 15,000 students total and a much smaller alumni base than Alabama or Auburn. But there is a real struggle in the state around student recruitment and with a generally younger student body, UAB has been trying to create a more traditional campus atmosphere. He did not have any comments on the impact of football on the academic programs except to say that having a marching band had been helpful to the music program. Other than speaking favorably about how the band was a cohesive group and seemed to function like a learning community, he didn’t have much to say about what football had actually contributed to student recruitment or the student experience. He had no comments on scholarships, fund raising or financing. UAB plays in Legion Field which is now old and in need of repair. UAB doesn’t have space on campus for a stadium.”

If you don’t know, UNC Charlotte did decide to add football. The 49ers played their first game in 2013 and will move up to FBS next fall.

The final games of the 2014 regular season were about more than rivalries and bragging rights. For several schools they were about securing a spot in the new College Football Playoff. With that spot, those teams would have earned millions for their conferences and themselves. We think three teams cost their conferences some major dough when they blew it on the field on Saturday.

You never know who you’re going to get matched with on Tinder…but you probably weren’t expecting Oregon’s mascot.

I’m a couple of weeks late on this, but I loved it too much to let it pass without comment.

The winner got a date with the mascot at a women’s volleyball game, which included courtside tickets for her and three of her friends.

Oregon’s assistant director of athletics communications Joe Waltasti said he thought it would take some time to catch on once he created the Tinder account, but instead the Duck had his first response within just a couple of minutes. In fact, the first dozen or so women the Duck swiped right to communicate with swiped right in return and opened dialogue with the Duck.

Waltasti says several of the female students sent clever one-liners. The winner said something along the lines of, “You’ve been waddling through my mind all day.” She and three of her friends sat courtside at a volleyball game and were greeted by the Duck, who came bearing a rose for the winner.

One outlet chastised Oregon for resorting to “cheesy” marketing. But guess what? That outlet is in AUSTRALIA. In my book, if you’ve got an Australian outlet writing about anything related to your college football program, it was a success.

Waltasti agrees the promotion was a success, and Oregon will be doing it again for a men’s basketball game and a women’s basketball game this season.